IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

In the latest installment of my 'hypocrisy' series I want to talk a little bit about Liberals and Conservatives and how their policies are in direct contrast with their core values (this pertains more to Western politics).

For example, it would be fair to assume that Christians tend to side with Conservative politicians and Conservative ideals when they vote. However the conservative approach to economics is in direct contrast with the 'help thy neighbor' Christian ethic, and is much more Darwinian in nature.

Liberals on the other hand are more likely to have Atheists and Darwinists in their tent, yet they believe in providing a social safety net for the downtrodden which is in direct contrast to the 'survival of the fittest' ideal that many of them think molded our world.

Why do we have these diametrically opposing schools of though stumping for the wrong side of the argument? Shouldn't the Darwinists be conservatives, and shouldn't the Christians be Liberals?

social darwinism has nothing to do with the evolutionary theory of Darwinism, but is instead conservative "Help yourself out of your own mess, and if you're broke or poor or sick you deserved it and why the fuck should i help you?" philosophy.

The prizes are a bottle of f*!@#$% SCOTCH and a box of cheap f!@#$#$ CIGARS!

Too many people! Almost all of the world's problems are due to overpopulation. The rest are due to religion.

50% of the world's wild animals have disappeared in the last 50 years. Did you eat them, or eat their house?

social darwinism has nothing to do with the evolutionary theory of Darwinism, but is instead conservative "Help yourself out of your own mess, and if you're broke or poor or sick you deserved it and why the fuck should i help you?" philosophy.

true, but you are dealing in semantics, and conceptually social Darwinism is much closer to Darwinism than the Christian ethic of helping thy neighbor, so my original point is still up for debate. Why this difference?

Deuce Dropper wrote:For example, it would be fair to assume that Christians tend to side with Conservative politicians and Conservative ideals when they vote. However the conservative approach to economics is in direct contrast with the 'help thy neighbor' Christian ethic, and is much more Darwinian in nature.

Bad assumptions. Liberals and conservatives don't make up monolithic voting blocks. Christians come in sorts of varieties. For a while in the '80s, you had conservative and liberal churches in the US funding opposed factions in Central American civil wars. Get granular.

Neoconservatism, which is often considered a dirty word by liberals on here, is pretty much an ideology that was pushed forward by cold-war liberals, many of whom were immigrant leftists in the 1930s/40s and who abandoned their hard leftism because of their disgust with Stalin. As a result, many became ardent anti-communist liberals during the Cold War, but were still liberals and mostly Democrats. Furthermore, during the Republican detente years under Nixon/Kissinger in the late 60s/early and mid 70s, it was this group that often criticized US foreign policy from the right (e.g., Scoop Jackson). Many (e.g., Abrams, Perle, Wolfowitz) abandoned the Dems after the fool Carter became president and served in the Reagan and Bush Jr. admins. Many still hold liberal positions in social policy but are foreign policy hawks and strong supporters of Israel.

When posters on here use it as an insult word and a word that only applies to Republican ideology, they are showing their stupidity and hypocrisy because so much of the ideology has its roots in Democratic Party members/politicians/voting blocs that voted with the Dems until 1968 (when the party became dominated by foolish policy platforms and special interests).

These were people, at least in the older generation that lived through/came of age in the 30/40s that often had first hand experiences with authoritarian governments first hand and had little time later on for students/Democratic youth activists in the 60s that idolized thugs such as Mao, Che etc.

Deuce Dropper wrote:For example, it would be fair to assume that Christians tend to side with Conservative politicians and Conservative ideals when they vote. However the conservative approach to economics is in direct contrast with the 'help thy neighbor' Christian ethic, and is much more Darwinian in nature.

Bad assumptions. Liberals and conservatives don't make up monolithic voting blocks. Christians come in sorts of varieties. For a while in the '80s, you had conservative and liberal churches in the US funding opposed factions in Central American civil wars. Get granular.

Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).

So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.

Deuce Dropper wrote:Liberals on the other hand are more likely to have Atheists and Darwinists in their tent, yet they believe in providing a social safety net for the downtrodden which is in direct contrast to the 'survival of the fittest' ideal that many of them think molded our world.

There's a vast difference between biological evolution and the notion of "social Darwinism", which is a misapplication of principles of biological evolution.

FRIENDLY REMINDER Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.